Let's see if Charlie Cook (notoriously neutral) was correct in what he said today:
"...In some ways, Clinton is almost in a no-win situation.
Even if she wins, she doesn’t really win in the sense of making a meaningful dent in Obama’s roughly 140-delegate lead unless she wins by a huge margin.
This is due to proportional representation and the existence of so many even-numbered delegate districts.
In those districts, landslides are needed in two-way races to avoid a delegate split. If Democrats don’t like this dynamic, perhaps they should revisit their proportional representation system when they contemplate the rules for 2012.
Had Clinton not won Ohio and Rhode Island, and performed much more strongly than expected in the bizarre “Texas two-step” primary and caucus, her donors would have said “enough” a month ago and she would be out of the race already.
Even if she wins somewhat handily in Pennsylvania, she won’t significantly close the gap in delegates, yet the win would make it difficult to withdraw.
Anything short of an enormous landslide will not get her any closer to the nomination and yet continued victories makes it hard for her to drop out of the race".
Posted by tfitznc at April 22, 2008 05:00 PMcharlie cook plays the math. for clinton, it's all about popular vote. that's her only possible argument, and she needs a good showing tonight to keep it going to north carolina and indiana.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 05:16 PMObama said the demographics in PA favor Clinton. Isn't that racist, ageist and elitist since there are more white people, older people, and "working-class" people there? How is that different than Bill Clinton saying well Jesse Jackson won SC. In other words, the demographics favored Obama. What's the difference in the comments? He's saying Clinton is the candidate of the old, white uneducated and he's the candidate of the young, black and smart.
Posted by CG at April 22, 2008 05:33 PMAs I opined yesterday:
"I don't see a 14-15% margin for Sen. Clinton.
Perhaps half that...
I will be watching voter turn-out in Philly/SE and statewide college towns vs. NE and central areas. The new SUSA crosstabs are out which seem to support the observation that if Obama gets >15% in Philly/SE and some of the rural males decide not to vote at all,this could be a little closer than a 7-8% Clinton plurality".
Answers so far to yesterday's posed questions:
(1) Will Clinton expand her female voter base 'downward' e.g., from 55 to 35-year olds?
NO
(2) Can Obama beat the projected state turn-out average of 48% MOL in SE/Philly?
YES, ?
(3) Will undecideds break late 3:2 for Clinton?
YES, HIGHER.
(4) Will newly registered voters break 3:2 for Obama?
NO, HIGHER.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So far, it seems as if Clinton's plurality will be less than some of the 'landslide' (i.e. >10-15%) proportions estimated by some commenters on both sides at the Left Coaster.
As has been stated elsewhere tonight, Obama's final results tend to be historically less than that estimated by exit polling. Alternatively, the population base has shifted toward Philly/SE and it's 'collar' suburbs.
FWIW, exit polls from PA did show that Obama is doing a bit better with seniors and white men than he did in Ohio.
Whether or not Clinton eeks out a small victory in PA tonight, Obama's strategy to bankrupt Clinton in the effort has apparently worked superbly.
I'm listening to CNN and Jeff Toobin is explaining how the districts get their number of delegates. Silly me--I thought it had to do with population. But no, they get their delegates based on "how well democrats do there" so heavily democratic districts (urban) get more delegates than more republican areas (rural). So the areas where Clinton does well, in the rural areas where it'll help in a swing state in Nov, don't have as many delegates. The urban areas where any dem will win gets more. What kind of crazy system is this??
Posted by CG at April 22, 2008 05:37 PM"So the areas where Clinton does well, in the rural areas where it'll help in a swing state in Nov, don't have as many delegates. The urban areas where any dem will win gets more. What kind of crazy system is this??"
It sounds sort of like the logic that Obama didn't win any big states so he shouldn't win. There's no guarantee that the rural areas will go for Hillary if perchance she's the candidate in November.
With all the complaining on both sides I imagine that there will be a lot of reconsideration of various primary rules and regulations.
It's not quite the same. She can win the same number of people but not get as many delegates.
Posted by CG at April 22, 2008 05:51 PMbob,
hopefully, one thing we can ALL agree on is that the rules need a radical overhaul.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 06:01 PMClinton wins Texas!!
It's best to wait for more than 5% of the precincts to report.
Posted by phidipides at April 22, 2008 06:05 PMphid,
in the popular vote, she did win texas.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 06:07 PMWith all the complaining on both sides I imagine that there will be a lot of reconsideration of various primary rules and regulations.
I hope so...it's desperately needed and that would be one of the good things to come out of this primary process. (that and just high Democratic registration and voter participation is another).
I'm still sticking with my yesterday's guestimate of Hillary by 11...and yes I think double digits is possible. It may be wishful thinking, but she's holding her own in Philly which I thought would be an Obama stronghold.
Having said that, she said yesterday she wasn't quitting (even if she doesn't meet the media/pundit and Obama supporters criteria for winning by enough)... supers still will decide this, despite the conventional wisdom that the media/pundits and Obama supporters in the left blogosphere will spreading. And...the rulz say the supers are free to vote for whomever they wish based on whatever reason.
9 more contests to go.
I'll be curious what the final tally of total democratic voters will be. It should be big and that's a good thing.
Here's a breakdown on PA allocation. So, it appears it's because of PA's state party rules for delegate allocation.
in the popular vote, she did win texas.
Too bad Texas didn't consult you before having different rules than you think should apply. And we all know those attending the caucuses (caucusi? cauci?) in Texas were not popular. Just ask Hillary. She tried to disenfranchise most of the blacks and hispanics voting for Obama. And just like if Obama pulls more delegates out of PA...you'll think it's unfair...but it's their rules.
Posted by phidipides at April 22, 2008 06:18 PMsorry, phid,
but too bad for you that the will of the people matters. which is why so many superdelegates are holding out. if obama closes out the popular vote, as is most likely, but not certain, it will be moot; but if he doesn't, it will get interesting.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 06:22 PM...but too bad for you that the will of the people matters.
I thought you said "hopefully, one thing we can ALL agree on is that the rules need a radical overhaul."
But if the rules were made by the will of the people through their representatives and in their respective States, why do you want to change them? It's the will of the people.
Posted by phidipides at April 22, 2008 06:32 PMah, yes, phid-
the rules represent the will of the people. i see. i don't recall voting on them.
i guess you'd prefer the early system of having electors choose the president, with no popular vote required.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 06:36 PMThe first ever serious African American candidate for president wins the pledged delegate count, most likely the popular vote and some of you are advocating that party insiders deny him the nomination?
Were that to happen the relationship between black voters and the party would change for years to come. I would never have thought real Democrats would stoop so low.
Posted by Upton at April 22, 2008 06:59 PMI know a lot of Clinton supporters want rule changes, and some may be called for, but I doubt if anyone would have been complaining if things had unfolded as planned. I think that the Clinton campaign was ill-served by several early strategic blunders. Alternately, Obama's campaign seemed to understand the importance of smaller states and had planned a strategy of surviving early. Once Super Tuesday had come without an overwhelming victory, Clinton's campaign seemed to be without direction.
So which primary rules need to be changed?
The bizarre double system in Texas has been in place for decades and I don't ever recall hearing of anyone complaining.
I wonder about open primaries, but they've worked to the advantage of both candidates at different times this year. There has been a lot of talk about caucuses versus primaries. Some states have a long history of caucuses and there is something to say about getting activists involved in them. I still think that full on primaries better serve the voters. Both Michigan and Florida violated the rules, and the DNC told the states what the punishment for the violation of the rules would be. I would guess that everyone wishes that things had been done differently. Someone suggested a rotation of state primaries so that everyone got a chance to go early, just not everyone early every election year.
There was a suggestion by a Clinton supporter in an article at Salon that a winner-take-all would give Clinton the lead in delegates, but I don't think that that's a very democratic idea. And while I like the idea of the popular vote replacing the electoral college, I'm not sure how that serves the purpose of a political party. It certainly doesn't help in picking a candidate who is viable across the country while the electoral college exists.
The one thing to say for the overall nominating process for the Democratic Party this time around is that overall the pledged delegate count percentage reflects the popular vote count.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 22, 2008 07:22 PMuh, no, upton. clinton has to win the popular vote to have a credible case.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 07:24 PMHow is this good for Ms. Clinton? She needed 60% plus to have a shot at getting more pledged delegates than Obama and she didn't get it. Her chances of success continue to lessen with her only hope being that she wins with the super delegates, which will have the effect of alienating a large percentage of African Americans. She is a good candidate who probably deserved better, but her campaign lost this election in February.
Posted by William Jensen at April 22, 2008 07:48 PMwj,
clinton is not going to take the lead in pledged delegates. she may still take the lead in popular votes. if she does, she has a credible case to take to the superdelegates, who will decide this race. if you don't see how a big win in another big state, plus a closing margin in north carolina, according to this year's best pollster, translates into a good night, then i can't help you.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 07:51 PMi guess you'd prefer the early system of having electors choose the president, with no popular vote required.
Someone changed the rules BEFORE the election affected by the rule change occurred.
Post hoc counts for nothing. I read lot's of hand-wringing about the rules, nothing more. Where were the cries for rule changes BEFORE the primaries? Of course, that might have implied someone was inquisitive enough to know what the rules were or that their candidate would be impacted by rules. It appears my assumption would be incorrect since the rules seem to be such a shock to some people. It's only understandable for the neophytes, in my opinion.
Posted by phidipides at April 22, 2008 08:21 PMYou know folks, the statement or argument that CG brought us is the argument for the Electoral College. Without it, the cities get all the representation those raising crops, doing business in small town America virtually nothing. Democrats are living proof the Electoral College is needed. Your rules show what it would be like without the EC. I think we can agree the rules need fixin...
What a poll that SUSA result from North Carolina is...down to 9 points....wow, what a swing...Barry now has a chance to lose all the remaining primaries and yet hold a small popular vote and delegate count advantage. Great candidate that gets use to losing. What a great mo he will have...maybe the Superdupers should step in and keep this train wreck from happening. Clinton should get out, but lets let Barry lose some more.
That popcorn tonight was nice and buttery. Many thanks for the show!
Posted by peter at April 22, 2008 08:35 PMOne wonders, really, how phid would distinguish his rules argument from those offered by Bush and Cheney in 2000.
The rules are fair or they are not. What date they were enacted and who failed to foresee problems is a fairly weak argument.
The rules have, in Texas and elsewhere, produced reversed results where the loser in the popular vote secured a majority of delegates. I do not know and do not care whether the reversals favoured one candidate or another. I would've thought most people would agree that reversed election results are a bad thing.
I am not aware of any Democrat arguing in 2000 that the reversed result was Gore's fault because he did not predict the Florida outrage.
Posted by Alan at April 22, 2008 08:37 PMVia CBS exit poll data: (from mydd.com)
Sixty four percent of Clinton voters said they would not be satisfied with Obama as the nominee while 35 percent said they would. Fifty four percent of Obama voters also said they would not be satisfied with Clinton, 44 percent said they would be.
...When it comes to the general election, Clinton fared slightly better against John McCain among Democratic primary voters today. Clinton led McCain 80 percent to 11 percent while Obama bested the presumptive GOP nominee 72 percent to 15 percent. But 26 percent of Clinton supporters say they will support McCain in the fall election if Obama is the nominee while 17 percent of his supporters said they would vote for McCain if Clinton wins the nomination.
The interpretation seems to be that Obama supporters are more reliably Democratic than Clinton supporters, at least in Pennsylvania.
Posted by joel dan walls at April 22, 2008 08:51 PMMaybe that dasterly groundhog saw its shadow again, six more weeks of this primary winter. Will it ever end?
Yeah, its Gore's fault!
Anyhow, word is Clinton raised $100K in twenty minutes tonight.
Posted by peter at April 22, 2008 08:51 PMBig win for Hillary. I'm going to owe Dennis $1.
So, what do we learn here? Negative campaigns work! Nice work, Hillary. The worst part of all? The math shows she can't win, but she can destroy the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Clinton can't win, but she sure can make sure Obama doesn't.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 22, 2008 08:55 PMI would've thought most people would agree that reversed election results are a bad thing.
Texas has a primary and a caucus. Don't like their rules? Don't like the results? Move there and change them. Wanna change them right now? Move there and change them. Good luck! And rolling on your back and kicking your legs while flailing your arms, all the time yelling, "No fair! No fair," doesn't support your argument.
I think we can agree the rules need fixin...
We? You're a republi-con. Fix your own rules...like, make a rule that idiots may not run for president. That was a rule we needed in 2 triple-naught.
Anyhow, word is Clinton raised $100K in twenty minutes tonight.
K Streets a peach!
From Terry McAuliff, Foxnews Is the fair and balanced network...made the first call of Pennsylvania for Clinton...beat CNN by 4 minutes.
Wonder if the chances of another debate just went up? Or is Barry Obama going to play chicken again. Where's the press conferences Barry? America would like to hear you respond to questions some more. You know open your mouth some more. You can't complain about McOld and the press just because he talks to them more than you do. Gives them more access than you do.
Posted by peter at April 22, 2008 09:07 PMWonder if the chances of another debate just went up?
Sure did! We're all turning on the probative question, "Senator Obama. Do you have flag underwear on?"
Gives them more access than you do.
It's all he's got.
Funds are rolling into Clinton's bank accounts right now...$500K in and hour.
Pardon me...the numbers up to 2.5 million. How much did Barry waste in Pennsylvania now?
“racist democrats, not republicans created clinton victory in PA” from kos
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday…from the NYTimes
H/T to Corrente
Wonder what will happen with Florida and Michigan now?
Posted by peter at April 22, 2008 09:26 PMDon't worry, I still have my waffles to finish. I hear they were sold on EBay today. Wonder how many people saw the diner scene and voted against him? Did he even leave a tip?
Talk to the press (Luke) Barry.
Posted by peter at April 22, 2008 09:31 PM...$500K in and hour.
Add another $6 million to it and she can pay off her debts. $6 mil and $1 will buy her a $1 TV spot. I just sent another $100. to Obama. With $42 million in the bank he needed a little help.
Wait till you see the NY Times article tomorrow! Some things are priceless.
Posted by phidipides at April 22, 2008 09:38 PMTo phid:
Clinton didn't try to disenfanchise anybody in Tx. However, this article was written by a man who just came back from a caucus site in Tx. and wrote that they were handing out paper EVERYWHERE. He said there was no oganization at all. He talked about how sombody could have lined up for Clinton and took the paper and just walked off with it or otherwise destroyed it. They weren't checking ID's nothing. When questoned about it the volunteer at the site said "You want to be here til six am?"
As for other caucus sites, there was a lady who claimed supporters for Obama in NV were registering homeless people to be counted for Obama in exchange for a meal.
Posted by John C. at April 22, 2008 09:38 PMif you don't see how a big win in another big state...
Turkana, Hillary certainly doesn't need Terry McAuliffe saying, "That she has won all the states that MATTER." Quite the diss on the rest of the USA.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 22, 2008 09:49 PM...there was a lady who claimed supporters for Obama in NV were registering homeless people to be counted for Obama in exchange for a meal.
Yeah, I heard those homeless, disabled Vets were really hungry. Thanks for the meal Obama... you could have at least signed a book or two!
9 in NC... right!
Clinton didn't try to disenfanchise anybody in Tx.
That's not what the legal filings indicate.
As for other caucus sites, there was a lady who claimed supporters for Obama in NV were registering homeless people to be counted for Obama in exchange for a meal.
My Mom says it was the other way around.
Posted by phidipides at April 22, 2008 09:58 PMTexas has a primary and a caucus. Don't like their rules? Don't like the results? Move there and change them. Wanna change them right now? Move there and change them. Good luck! And rolling on your back and kicking your legs while flailing your arms, all the time yelling, "No fair! No fair," doesn't support your argument.
I did not cry 'No fair! No fair!'. I said reversed election results are bad. Apparently you disagree with that proposition, although you do not tell us why. If there's any floundering around with arms and legs it's what you're doing. You're doing so much floundering I suspect you've got a red herring in there somewhere.
Posted by Alan at April 22, 2008 10:05 PMred herring in there somewhere.
Thank you, Joseph McCarthy. Got your briefcase? Next.
I said reversed election results are bad.
And I responded that you should examine your assumptions that the results were reversed. They were not. The rules only appear to have arrived at a different result than that which you favor.
I did not cry 'No fair! No fair!'.
Some simply sulk.
Posted by phidipides at April 22, 2008 10:15 PMAs much as I want Hillary to win this whole shootin' match come November, I fear she is already a footnote in the history books.
She needed to win every primary with 65% of the vote, and she didn't do that in a state (PA) where she was favored.
The media is already talking about Indiana, forgetting NC and some of the other states where Obama is leading.
Maybe she's hoping it will all come down to Guam casting the deciding vote.
Posted by Muck at April 22, 2008 10:22 PMYes phid, some do whine. Whining about bad election systems is a badge to be worn rather proudly, I think, although Bush, Cheney and you seem to disagree. Your argument consists of saying I said something I did not and name-calling when I contest your misquotation. Do you have an argument or are you all soggy one-liners? Are reversed election results good or bad? Yes or no?
Posted by Alan at April 22, 2008 10:23 PMTurkana - Thanks for the post. Congratulations to the Democratic Party for a great night. Sorry the Kossacks insist on creating sewers of hatred and bitterness everywhere they post. We seem to have a few of them here tonight. Great win for Democracy. Imagine letting poor white people vote! What crime will the Clinton campaign commit next? Franchising voters? Angry is okay, bitter and hateful is so ugly. But you can count on the same people to bring it, everytime, regardless of the topic. That's why the Obama campaign lost so spectacularly tonight.
Posted by jeter at April 22, 2008 10:26 PMHey, an update -- looks like Dennis might owe me $1! Check it out at http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/. With 98.91% of PA districts reporting, Clinton leads 54.3% to Obama's 45.7%, which is a lead of 8.6%, less than 9%, which is certainly less than double-digits. It's single digits, and it looks like I won the bet I made with Dennis. I also said she'd get a half-dozen or dozen delegates or something, and that's the case, too. Moreover, Obama is now just under 300 delegates from the nomination, while Hillary is well over 400 delegates from the nomination. Not a bad night for Obama, not at all. Good luck learning that from the pundits, though.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 22, 2008 10:37 PMdon't start celebrating, brian. their website is behind cnn's, which has it at 10.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 10:42 PMTurkana it's going to be 10 in the media. They have to keep the story going...
Those numbers show it is less than 9, which is good for Obama.
phid,
i know this, like everything else, is hard for you to understand, but i've been saying all along that obama is winning fair and square, that clinton still has a chance to win fair and square, and that the rules are terrible and need to be changed.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 10:46 PM7o6,
it's about 9.5, now, with numbers still trickling in. obama has another chance for the knockout in nc and indiana. two and a quarter + million people voted today, once republican counties now have more registered dems the repugs, and the people are clearly enjoying still having a chance to decide.
Posted by Turkana at April 22, 2008 11:18 PMFor the good of the party, Obama should drop out now and urge his supporters to vote for Clinton. He can't win in a GE. He's refused to let MI and FL be counted. He's weakened the party by dividing it. He's aided the MSM in working to swift boat the best candidate the Demorats have. If he's really a loyal Democrat he should move to make Hillary the nominee and work to secure her election in November.
Posted by Johnny at April 22, 2008 11:23 PMJohnny, would you get over MI and FL! The repukes played the Dems perfectly in those 2 states. The republi-con state legislators in both those states sabotaged the Dems election year. Hillary admitted it on Leno as well.
I agree with you Turkana... the best part of the day was high turnout and good weather! Go Dems!
We need to knock McLame in the dirt!
brian bell...you owe me a buck..and it's going to the clinton campaign fund..the frontrunner just lost a hugely important state by 10%...you obama people truly are goofy...the ticket might well be clinton/obama..he cannot and will not win on his own..if not for urban america and elitists and college kids..this wouldn't be a race..look at the numbers..he cannot connect with middle america..working class america..isn't going with him..and when you childish people begin to face the reality of that..we can begin to move on..either join the ticket ..or get out..
Posted by dennis at April 23, 2008 04:16 AMat the end of this process..including mi and fl..hillary will have the lead in the popular vote..sorry obama folks..
Posted by dennis at April 23, 2008 04:18 AMGood morning everyone...
It's a Beautiful day in Pennsylvania (H/t to Pete Womback, who had a daily radio minute sponsored by the PA Rural Electric Cooperative)....
To paraphrase Colonel Killgore...
I love the sound of Obamabots Heads exploding in the morning...
Pop....Pop.....Pop....Pop...Pop...Pop....Pop
It sounds like....VICTORY.
I want you Obamabots and Obama-anians (people who will reluctantly listen to reason) to get a clue, to get real.
Anyone who starts quoting statistics, from anything or anyone, and aping MSM memes don't get it.
a) This is not a "fair weather Presidency" environment. The nation is in grave peril. Bush/Cheney put this country on the path to self destruction. Don't make any equivocations about that.
Barack Obama would make a good "fair weather President." But that is not the environment we are in.
And with all the MSM last night saying "Hillary can't win..." "Hillary loses the state even if she wins..." "She has to win in double digits to prove she should stay in..." etc. etc. etc. etc. It was even David Brooks (a Rethuglican supporter to be sure) on Lehrer news hour last night saying that basically Hillary's campaign is dead.
As to weakness in fund-raising in her campaign (because I know that they will now attempt to show she doesn't have support), she was on CBS's early morning show this morning. She mentioned that she raised 3 million dollars over the Internet last night.. Just overnight.
She also said that Obama outspent her in PA 3 to 1. Three to One. And Hillary won by 10% of the popular vote. (Special note: as the evening went on, her lead increased, not decreased in the poll result figures. Figure it out, Obamabots.)
Can anyone see the similarities with Mitt Romney?
b) Statsitics is also partly based on "expectation"--that is, expectations that the trends will be similar as to what was seen before. But this is no ordinary election cycle. Statistics get blown out of the water via one main point--voter turnout. When it is low, then all their BS usually is mirrored in the final results.
But yesterday, we had RECORD TURNOUT in PA. That blows all trends, all statistical "expectations" out the window.
And like I said before, and a cold hard fact that you should ALL take to heart, the only poll that matters is the one on primary day in the state, and in the general election in the Autumn.
The rest of the BS on polling is just that. BS. And we in PA became inured to all of that BS.
I am University graduate. And I voted for Hillary. Many other university graduates must have also voted for Hillary too. Meaning that the attempts at spin by the MSM as to why Obama lost are incongruent, and their explanations as to who voted for each candidate were nonsensical, and basically without foundation. (I can tell you that there weren't any exit pollers in Mercer county where I voted.)
In Mercer county, and Lawrence, Hillary won going away. 69% and 71% of the popular vote. I am certain if anyone checked all the counties in PA you would see some striking numbers.
Why was Hillary chosen by PA Democrats? Read on.
The ship of state is foundering. Courtesy of three big holes in the hull (going to war in Iraq based on lies; A grossly mismanaged war in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are basically reconstituted to their strength when we first went in, in 2001, and Abu Graib--I saw some of the photos on the Internet that were posted--did you know we poured human excrement over the prisoners? That is a violation of the Geneva convention right there.) To top that, Bush/Cheney have set fire to the engine room, and that fire is spreading below deck (trampling of the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights--warrantless wiretaps on US citizens, Bush's cabinet okaying torture, and those 700-plus signing statements Bush did to legistlation that passed the Congress, and Cheney's "man-sized safes" in his residency). To top that off, the Ship of State is in the path of a category 10 Hurricane (world-wide recession, which could tip into something worse, wars without end, the credit crisis in the US and in the world, the danger of our spending our treasury dry).
This is not going to be a "Fair Weather Presidency" coming up.....so far from that.
Hillary's experiences count here. Far beyond Obama's. And light years beyond McCain's.
Figure it out.
This isn't a popularity contest a la American Idol.
Make Informed decisions.
Also...NBC's chattering heads this morning are now attacking the Democratic party outright. They are now saying it will destroy the party that this contest will continue. They are angry that citizens of my state didn't listen to them that Hillary "was dead." So their true colors (pro-Republican, pro-War, pro-Totalitarianism) were now shown. They hate representative democracy, and want the Democratic party to lose.
Prove them to be what they are--Bullshitters extraordinaire. Empty suits.
It's up to you people--each and everyone of us-- to deliver us all from evil. For this generation, and our children, and those generations yet unborn.
But this is a Beautiful Morning in Pennsylvania.
I have voted. And my vote was heard. Around the world. (Of course, in conjunction to the others who also voted.)
Posted by Troubled American at April 23, 2008 05:20 AMSICK AND TIRED OF THIS manufactured horse race that the MSM wants to see continue so they can appear to be earning their HUGE SALARIES!!! When these two candidates realize that the ONLY way the Dems can win with certainty this fall is for them to figure out HOW TO RUN TOGETHER...then I'll be supporting the party with my $$$$$$...not a moment before!
Posted by Dancer at April 23, 2008 05:34 AMSo their true colors (pro-Republican, pro-War, pro-Totalitarianism) were now shown.
It was nice to wake up to the news that Hillary and her supporters stuck a finger in the eye of the MSM.
I have voted. And my vote was heard.
And this Michigan voter thanks you!
Posted by Sharon at April 23, 2008 05:36 AMJust checked the PA election returns from the link someone provided above. Ron Paul got 16%. Heh. We drove through PA on our way to NJ this past weekend. Ron Paul signs all over. Huckabee got 11%. McCain 73%
Posted by CG at April 23, 2008 05:39 AM